Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

quantity or....... quantity?

imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 2:15:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ive noticed that in some debates the number of sources has either dropped to zero, or has risen to well over a dozen over the course of a debate. Now before when i would vote on debates, picking the side that won was simply a matter of who used more than 3 sources.... But now debates are using dozens of sources on both sides and all of them check out to be true.

My question is this, Is there an acceptable number of more sources used by one side over the other in debates that warrants the extra 2 points given for superior sources in a debate?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

To properly judge this question you must first understand why sources matter. Anyone can make stuff up. Sources are what show that our claims are true, but unreliable sources leave doubt which weakens that case. This makes a big difference when deciding whether we should bomb Iran. If one person is getting their facts from blogs and youtube while the other is using CNN and the United Nations, it is clear whose case is more reliable.

This however makes no difference in a debate about philosophy or whether chocolate is better then vanilla. In one of my more recent debates I had 2 people vote against me for sources, even though the only sources my opponent gave were definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have very easily done the same thing but that would have been a complete waste of time. Everyone knows what those words mean.

The way I see it, I only vote on sources if the arguments in the debate needed a source to be validated. Saying "the sky is blue" does not need a source. But if someone claims Obamacare should be repealed because it will increase the debt, then we need to know where this information came from. Only in a case like that should a source vote even be considered.
Thrasymachus
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 11:48:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with the above. I think the sources point should only come into play where either (a) one or other debator did not substantiate a key point, or (b) when on a factual point key to the debate, one side had a better presentation of evidence than the other. (Obviously as debates have multiple points and arguments, you can award it globally on who did better at substantiating necessary points, and who generally had better evidential support when debators conflicted on facts).

Having more sources generally is of no importance. If PRO offers a case with dozens of sources, but CON can show all of PROs arguments to fail on principle (maybe all the arguments are fallacious), CON should not lose the source points because he didn't use any sources - he didn't need to. If this "you had more/better sources so you get the points" trend keeps up, there is going to be a perverse incentive for debaters to cram in some peer reviewed work on uncontroversial/inessential points just to buff their citation list. Tbh, I myself have resolved that I will have to contrive to have (at least) an equal number of citations to my opponent round-by-round.

I am particularly irate about this because I am losing my most recent debate because of 4/5 voters giving sources against me because my opponent 'had more sources'.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 2:04:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, it's about whether a contention needs factual evidence and then the quality of that evidence supporting the claim.

I think that supporting expert opinion is good evidence, but it has to genuinely expert, not a random blogger. Sometimes bloggers reference their source, which may validate their opinion.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 2:52:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

Says the man who had 1 source, compared to my long list of sources (many were .edu)
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

To properly judge this question you must first understand why sources matter. Anyone can make stuff up. Sources are what show that our claims are true, but unreliable sources leave doubt which weakens that case. This makes a big difference when deciding whether we should bomb Iran. If one person is getting their facts from blogs and youtube while the other is using CNN and the United Nations, it is clear whose case is more reliable.

This however makes no difference in a debate about philosophy or whether chocolate is better then vanilla. In one of my more recent debates I had 2 people vote against me for sources, even though the only sources my opponent gave were definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have very easily done the same thing but that would have been a complete waste of time. Everyone knows what those words mean.

The way I see it, I only vote on sources if the arguments in the debate needed a source to be validated. Saying "the sky is blue" does not need a source. But if someone claims Obamacare should be repealed because it will increase the debt, then we need to know where this information came from. Only in a case like that should a source vote even be considered.

But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Why is that?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 2:52:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?


Says the man who had 1 source, compared to my long list of sources (many were .edu)

If you read any of the comments on this thread you would know why.

BTW can you explain why I need a reliable source such as .edu to explain to me what the word "life" means? I thought that 31 years of speaking english was enough, guess not.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 10:37:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/1/2012 2:52:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?


Says the man who had 1 source, compared to my long list of sources (many were .edu)

If you read any of the comments on this thread you would know why.

BTW can you explain why I need a reliable source such as .edu to explain to me what the word "life" means? I thought that 31 years of speaking english was enough, guess not.

Well seeing as you didn't know what life meant, I guess not either.
Also the debate was about equal opportunity. The whole debate was you making up your own definitions, by misusing words.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:47:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 10:46:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 10:37:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/1/2012 2:52:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?


Says the man who had 1 source, compared to my long list of sources (many were .edu)

If you read any of the comments on this thread you would know why.

BTW can you explain why I need a reliable source such as .edu to explain to me what the word "life" means? I thought that 31 years of speaking english was enough, guess not.

Well seeing as you didn't know what life meant, I guess not either.
Also the debate was about equal opportunity. The whole debate was you making up your own definitions, by misusing words.

Your source was for pro-life by the way
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:53:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Why is that?

In this case I would say a source vote either way is not justified, since neither of them deserve the points for it. Providing sources does not by itself bring any value to the debate. That is why voting for the debater who had more sources makes absolutely no sense. Supporting factual assertions with reliable sources so people know your claims are true is what the source vote is supposed to encourage. In your example neither of the debaters did that.

For more, here is something else that can help:
http://www.debate.org...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Posts: 4,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:55:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 10:53:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Why is that?

In this case I would say a source vote either way is not justified, since neither of them deserve the points for it. Providing sources does not by itself bring any value to the debate. That is why voting for the debater who had more sources makes absolutely no sense. Supporting factual assertions with reliable sources so people know your claims are true is what the source vote is supposed to encourage. In your example neither of the debaters did that.

For more, here is something else that can help:
http://www.debate.org...

The irony. For the S/G explanation, ensure* is spelt wrong.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 10:56:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edu's are usually good but are sometimes written by 4th graders using a school site.

Source:

My librarians making us do a class on what sources are good. (it sucks BTW)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 11:29:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 10:46:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Well seeing as you didn't know what life meant, I guess not either.
Also the debate was about equal opportunity. The whole debate was you making up your own definitions, by misusing words.

Right, and so far just about everyone who voted is apparently too stupid to see that.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 11:32:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 11:31:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
A mix is needed

fixed
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 11:36:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Like if I use 20 in one round they use 1 then I win sources that round. Like if it's a 40-30 ratio then the more wins. But quality needs to factor in as well. Kinda depends. I would say if one side uses like 10 more sources they deserve the 2 points. Anything else quality rules.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 12:44:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 11:36:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Like if I use 20 in one round they use 1 then I win sources that round. Like if it's a 40-30 ratio then the more wins. But quality needs to factor in as well. Kinda depends. I would say if one side uses like 10 more sources they deserve the 2 points. Anything else quality rules.

Did you read any of the previous posts? If so please comment on them.

Let's look at this with an analogy. Suppose you are the President of the United States. You have 1 advisor telling you that you should declare war on Iran. Another advises you not to. You ask for both of them to have a report on your desk first thing in the morning.

The next morning you read both reports. Both of them have equally compelling arguments. The first uses 10 sources which include the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Secretary of Defense, the President of the UN etc... The second report has 200 sources. All of them from youtube, yahoo answers, and wikipedia. Which report do you accept?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:09:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, if the citations are all from the same source, then I count them as one. If citations are from a person/source that has been discredited, then I almost always give the person who proved the source invalid the two points.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:56:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 10:56:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Edu's are usually good but are sometimes written by 4th graders using a school site.

Source:

My librarians making us do a class on what sources are good. (it sucks BTW)

Princeton.edu
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:58:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 11:29:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/1/2012 10:46:14 PM, DanT wrote:
Well seeing as you didn't know what life meant, I guess not either.
Also the debate was about equal opportunity. The whole debate was you making up your own definitions, by misusing words.

Right, and so far just about everyone who voted is apparently too stupid to see that.

once again, it wasn't a debate over pro-life, so the fact you didn't know the definition of life is irrelevant to the debate, which you attempted to side track with an argument against pro-lifers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 11:04:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

To properly judge this question you must first understand why sources matter. Anyone can make stuff up. Sources are what show that our claims are true, but unreliable sources leave doubt which weakens that case. This makes a big difference when deciding whether we should bomb Iran. If one person is getting their facts from blogs and youtube while the other is using CNN and the United Nations, it is clear whose case is more reliable.

This however makes no difference in a debate about philosophy or whether chocolate is better then vanilla. In one of my more recent debates I had 2 people vote against me for sources, even though the only sources my opponent gave were definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have very easily done the same thing but that would have been a complete waste of time. Everyone knows what those words mean.

The way I see it, I only vote on sources if the arguments in the debate needed a source to be validated. Saying "the sky is blue" does not need a source. But if someone claims Obamacare should be repealed because it will increase the debt, then we need to know where this information came from. Only in a case like that should a source vote even be considered.

But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Why is that?
Both quality and quantity should be taken into consideration. Take for example 100 pennies and a single dollar bill; the pennies are higher in quantity, but the dollar bill is higher in quality, both are equal in value.
If they are tied in sources than sources should remain tied.

If one has no source for one of their round, that round should be assumed either plagiarized or false; for all the voters knows the round could be complete BS, that sounded nice, or it could be snagged from some essay.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 11:05:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 11:04:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

To properly judge this question you must first understand why sources matter. Anyone can make stuff up. Sources are what show that our claims are true, but unreliable sources leave doubt which weakens that case. This makes a big difference when deciding whether we should bomb Iran. If one person is getting their facts from blogs and youtube while the other is using CNN and the United Nations, it is clear whose case is more reliable.

This however makes no difference in a debate about philosophy or whether chocolate is better then vanilla. In one of my more recent debates I had 2 people vote against me for sources, even though the only sources my opponent gave were definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have very easily done the same thing but that would have been a complete waste of time. Everyone knows what those words mean.

The way I see it, I only vote on sources if the arguments in the debate needed a source to be validated. Saying "the sky is blue" does not need a source. But if someone claims Obamacare should be repealed because it will increase the debt, then we need to know where this information came from. Only in a case like that should a source vote even be considered.

But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Why is that?
Both quality and quantity should be taken into consideration. Take for example 100 pennies and a single dollar bill; the pennies are higher in quantity, but the dollar bill is higher in quality, both are equal in value.
If they are tied in sources than sources should remain tied.

If one has no source for one of their round, that round should be assumed either plagiarized or false; for all the voters knows the round could be complete BS, that sounded nice, or it could be snagged from some essay.

That is unless it's an expansion of the idea of an earlier round, with a previous source.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 1:54:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 11:04:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

To properly judge this question you must first understand why sources matter. Anyone can make stuff up. Sources are what show that our claims are true, but unreliable sources leave doubt which weakens that case. This makes a big difference when deciding whether we should bomb Iran. If one person is getting their facts from blogs and youtube while the other is using CNN and the United Nations, it is clear whose case is more reliable.

This however makes no difference in a debate about philosophy or whether chocolate is better then vanilla. In one of my more recent debates I had 2 people vote against me for sources, even though the only sources my opponent gave were definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have very easily done the same thing but that would have been a complete waste of time. Everyone knows what those words mean.

The way I see it, I only vote on sources if the arguments in the debate needed a source to be validated. Saying "the sky is blue" does not need a source. But if someone claims Obamacare should be repealed because it will increase the debt, then we need to know where this information came from. Only in a case like that should a source vote even be considered.

But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Any discrediting of a source usually makes me vote for he who discredits. Unless there are claims that have no citation backing them, I usually do it as a draw unless someone discredits. Sourcing is worth too many points tbh, usually not the most relevant thing in a debate.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 2:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 10:58:09 AM, DanT wrote:
once again, it wasn't a debate over pro-life, so the fact you didn't know the definition of life is irrelevant to the debate, which you attempted to side track with an argument against pro-lifers.

DanT, stop being a troll. No one cares about your childish nonsense in this thread. If you have something to claim about our debate, post it here in the debate where it belongs:
http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 3:12:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 11:04:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/1/2012 3:37:17 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 2/1/2012 4:00:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
The number of sources has absolutely nothing to do with the question being voted on which is:

Who used the most reliable sources?

To properly judge this question you must first understand why sources matter. Anyone can make stuff up. Sources are what show that our claims are true, but unreliable sources leave doubt which weakens that case. This makes a big difference when deciding whether we should bomb Iran. If one person is getting their facts from blogs and youtube while the other is using CNN and the United Nations, it is clear whose case is more reliable.

This however makes no difference in a debate about philosophy or whether chocolate is better then vanilla. In one of my more recent debates I had 2 people vote against me for sources, even though the only sources my opponent gave were definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have very easily done the same thing but that would have been a complete waste of time. Everyone knows what those words mean.

The way I see it, I only vote on sources if the arguments in the debate needed a source to be validated. Saying "the sky is blue" does not need a source. But if someone claims Obamacare should be repealed because it will increase the debt, then we need to know where this information came from. Only in a case like that should a source vote even be considered.

But what happens if the following hypothetical situation comes up (as it does many times):

Let's say Pro posts no sources whatsoever, but Con posts several unreliable sources. If this is the case, then you should technically leave sources tied, right? After all, since Pro provided no sources whatsoever, he didn't have reliable or unreliable sources; however, Con produced unreliable sources, yet I see people voting for the Con side because he produced sources while Pro did not (this includes myself).

Why is that?
Both quality and quantity should be taken into consideration. Take for example 100 pennies and a single dollar bill; the pennies are higher in quantity, but the dollar bill is higher in quality, both are equal in value.
If they are tied in sources than sources should remain tied.

If one has no source for one of their round, that round should be assumed either plagiarized or false; for all the voters knows the round could be complete BS, that sounded nice, or it could be snagged from some essay.

I think that quantity should only apply to a debate when both sides' sources are relatively equal.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 3:14:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 3:12:46 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

I think that quantity should only apply to a debate when both sides' sources are relatively equal.

Now, if both sides are equally substantiated, I see no reason to start saying "more sources = vote for them".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 3:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 3:14:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/2/2012 3:12:46 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:

I think that quantity should only apply to a debate when both sides' sources are relatively equal.

Now, if both sides are equally substantiated, I see no reason to start saying "more sources = vote for them".

Well, if you combine Double_R's analogy with DanT's analogy, then you see that more sources = vote for them (only if both sides have relatively equal sources). Of course, you wouldn't vote for them if they have just one or two more sources. I mean you should vote for them if the ratio is 10:20 or 1:10. Besides, if you have more reliable sources, then that means more of your arguments are backed up. If you have one reliable source, then you do not have as many arguments supported by evidence/facts as you do compared to the person who posted more sources.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 12:44:45 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/1/2012 11:36:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Like if I use 20 in one round they use 1 then I win sources that round. Like if it's a 40-30 ratio then the more wins. But quality needs to factor in as well. Kinda depends. I would say if one side uses like 10 more sources they deserve the 2 points. Anything else quality rules.

Did you read any of the previous posts? If so please comment on them.

Let's look at this with an analogy. Suppose you are the President of the United States. You have 1 advisor telling you that you should declare war on Iran. Another advises you not to. You ask for both of them to have a report on your desk first thing in the morning.

The next morning you read both reports. Both of them have equally compelling arguments. The first uses 10 sources which include the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Secretary of Defense, the President of the UN etc... The second report has 200 sources. All of them from youtube, yahoo answers, and wikipedia. Which report do you accept?

Lol.

But in debate it is less serious. Quality matters more but certian quantity is needed.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sources should not matter really that much make it 1 point instead of 2. (Or increase the points for arguments). A cohesive argument which makes sense (and has less sources, 1 or 2) is much better than a non-cohesive argument which does not make a point and is sourced up the wazoo....

Here's the source hierarchy (at least in my opinion):

The top--.gov sites, .edu sites (reputable universities like Princeton), books on the subject, papers written by reputable people

The middle--certain .com sites, .org sites, wikipedia

The bottom--certain .com sites, forums, any kind of answer site (yahoo, wiki answers, etc)